Testing, methods and jurisdiction

I came across this article by Charles Pelkey in VeloNews.com dated November 18th, 2010 about doping testing, methods and jurisdiction and thought it was worth sharing. A reader asked the following question;

“I would like to know how the anti-doping tests in professional cycling compares to the testing that goes on in other professional sports. I seem to remember reading about a court ruling in the U.S. that forbade team owners from firing athletes that tested positive.

I also have the impression that in sports like baseball, the athletes’ union has very successfully fought to limit both testing and punishments. It seems that there is a huge discrepancy between all this testing and media coverage that goes on in cycling versus the rest of the sporting universe.
─ Beth Prescott

ANSWER:

Dear Beth,
Cycling certainly gets more than its “fair” share of attention in doping circles. Of course, that may be due in part to the fact that cycling has more than its fair share of doping. Look at the sport. At the top levels, we see athletes spending four, five and six hours a day racing over the course of three weeks. The demands are incredible and the benefits of what were once graciously called “recovery methods” are obvious, especially since the development of oxygen transport drugs like EPO.

Do recall that the World Anti-Doping Agency was itself created as the direct result of a doping scandal at the 1998 Tour de France. The fight against doping in sport is rooted in cycling and our sport continues to warrant attention. We also tend to produce the highest number of anti-doping rule violations. According to its annual report, cycling alone generated 64 anti-doping rule violations (and 77 adverse analytical findings), the highest number of any international governing body that is part of WADA. Indeed, the UCI’s numbers were more than double those of the second federation on that list, the International Weightlifting Federation, which tallied up 30 rule violations. We’re No.1!

Now, with regard to major professional sports in the United States, the biggies — Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Hockey League and the National Basketball Association — have their own anti-doping programs, which are not subject to the rules outlined in World Anti-Doping Code. Those professional leagues are not directly related to the International Olympic Committee and are, therefore, not subject to the provisions of the Code. American professionals participating in Olympic events, however, are subject to the rules and regulations of their IOC-chartered governing bodies and must comply with those rules and procedures.

Testing and anti-doping enforcement in American professional sports are governed by labor contracts between the leagues and their respective players’ associations. There is some movement afoot to have those rules either mirror those in the Code or to simply turn over all testing and enforcement to WADA. It’s unlikely, though, that we will see that any time soon.

The case to which you refer involves Minnesota Vikings players Kevin Williams and Pat Williams. The two Williams — not related — tested positive for the masking agent bumetanide, a strong diuretic, way back last year. While the two were suspended for four games, they have never served the suspension, since a court imposed a temporary restraining order until the issue is resolved.

The Williams contend that they weren’t afforded the opportunity to offer mitigating evidence — namely that the Bumetide was an undisclosed ingredient in a weight-loss supplement — before being found guilty of a violation.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the NFL’s appeal of lower court rulings in the case. At this point, the matter remains up in the air. There were oral arguments before a Minnesota appeals court Wednesday as the two players seek to permanently bar the imposition of their four-game penalty.
─ Charles”